Email from Burney Brushears, the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, to
Peter Kershaw of Heal Our Land Ministries
Below is the content of an email I received from the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, a corporation sole sales company, along with my response. The "Bishop's" email was the result of a brief comment I posted regarding Gamaliel Ministries, a Corporation Sole, on my ministry's web site.
The "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries, as reflected in the Nevada Secretary Of State corporate records, is Burney Brushears. However, Burney doesn't appear to be eager to acknowledge as much in his correspondence to me. Indeed, Burney Brushears has a strong propensity for hiding, whether it be hiding behind impressive self-appointed sham titles, or hiding out in Mexico.
Burney Brushears is the author of Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual. Burney Brushears advocates a "peaceful" and "strategic withdrawal from contemporary Babylon." In theory this could make sense (if withdrawing from contemporary Babylon were your objective). However, in practical application Burney Brushears' strategic withdrawal is anything but "peaceful." Burney's "strategy" of "withdrawal" involves putting a multitude of government agencies on notice that you're "withdrawing."
The fact of the matter is that there is no "peaceful withdrawal from contemporary Babylon" so long as contemporary Babylon suspects that it's your intention to withdraw (masters never stand idly by and just watch as their slaves leave the plantation). Any affiliation with high-profile "goverment-disfavored persons" (such as Burney Brushears) is likely to sabotage even the best-laid plans for withdrawing from the system. Burney Brushears' "strategic withdrawal" accomplishes little more than pasting a great big target on your chest, with instructions, "Shoot right here."
Burney Brushears' strategic withdrawal works so well that Burney himself had to flee the country. Among the many things that Brushears fails to disclose to his clients is that his "peaceful withdrawal" may necessitate withdrawing entirely from their homeland, and that it's unlikely that they could achieve any greater degree of "personal sovereignty" outside the United States.
Brushears now makes his home in Sonora, Mexico, a nation which doesn't particularly have an exemplary human rights record. Nor does the Mexican govenment in any way concur with Brushears' "personal sovereignty" theories. Burney Brushears is not welcome nor permitted to cross any U.S. border, which means that his ability to support and defend his own clients is severly hampered. When his clients are criminally indicted he won't be able to make a court appearance to defend them or testify in their behalf.
Among his high-profile attention-getting tactics Burney Brushears places heavy emphasis upon the use of the corporation sole (for which Gamaliel Ministries charges $5,000 each) as an "umbrella" for avoiding (or rather evading) taxes. Gamaliel Ministries attempts to portray that any corporation sole it creates is a "church" or "office of" a church and, therefore, entitled to all the tax benefits that real churches enjoy.
Furthermore, Burney Brushears tells his clients that they can claim numerous tax benefits that even real churches could never legally take advantage of. Even if Gamaliel Ministries were setting up any real churches or church offices (which is highly doubtful) they'd still be committing tax fraud because they're giving illegal tax advice, and any clients of Gamaliel Ministries who actually follow that advice are in very serious jeopardy of facing a criminal indictment.
It would appear that Gamaliel Ministries peddles corporation soles not because they're righteous or principled men who are in any way serious about starting real churches and advancing the Christian religion, but because they think the corporation sole can help them, and their clients, avoid taxes. From all accounts the "Bishop" and his buddies are getting rich in the process, but their clients are in for some deep trouble with the IRS.
Not only will the IRS destroy your life for taking Burney Brushears' nescient advice, you'll get to pay him for doing it. Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual is Burney Brushears' detax program in the form of a $400.00 book, and a $1,250 seminar held in Sonora, Mexico. But in order to achieve real freedom, you'll also have to make additional purchases, such as a $5,000 corporation sole.
Burney Brushears is highly critical of government entanglements, whether it be Social Security numbers, drivers licenses, birth certificates, automobile plates and registration, land titles, etc., which he asserts undermine "personal sovereignty." Brushears is especially critical of corporations. Yet, given an opportunity to peddle corporation soles for $5000.00 each, he makes an exception by claiming that the corporation sole isn't a corporation, and that a corporation sole is "not in the system." Such hypocrisy and duplicity is commonplace among corporation sole hucksters. Like his fellow "paytriots," Burney Brushears is eager to cast aside his principles where there's a buck to be made.
Burney Brushears may have some strong sales acumen; but legal acumen not. If he had any legal acumen he'd have some original thought to go along with it; but Burney has no original thought, whatsoever. Everything Brushears sells he's plagiarized from others (several of Burney's clients have sent me copies of Strategic Withdrawal and asked me for my legal opinion, so I'm quite familiar with what he's peddling). Everything Burney Brushears recommends to his clients I've seen a hundred times before, and no one has ever succeeded using such neophyte tactics. One would hope that a plagiarist like Burney would at least be able to plagiarize something that could work!
Burney Brushears' method of "strategic withdrawal" is a disaster for his clients, both legally and theologically.
Gamaliel Services wrote:
But far more egregious than the sin of church incorporation is the sin of using the church as a cloak to pursue personal material benefits. The benefits of the Christian religion are spiritual, not material. The church is an ambassador for the Lord Jesus Christ as a testimony to the world of His grace and love through being a selfless blessing to others. As such, every time the church chases after selfish and self-centered worldly pursuits, that church is in sin and it undermines the testimony of Christ Jesus.
Is your plan to offer your clients a safe and comfortable place to live with you there in Sonora, Mexico when they get criminally indicted? Have you told them to liquidate all their assets and move the cash into a Mexican bank? I'll at least give you credit for thinking through where a man in your line of work should live, and how to get away with it.
I welcome your response. However, please don't waste your time or mine unless you care to identify yourself by name, so that I have some reasonable assurances that you actually speak with some authority on behalf of Gamaliel Ministries.
I had originally received the above email from the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries on 4/16/04 at 8:29 PM from the email address GamalielServices@netscape.net. It was to that email address that I responded on 4/17/04 at 3:04 PM. I also posted that response, as you see it immediately above.
In checking today I discovered that email address is invalid (anything sent there will bounce). It's anyone's guess just how long that email address has been invalid, or if it ever was valid. As such, I'll give the "Bishop" the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that it's entirely possible the "Bishop" never received my response.
Up until today, and to the best of my knowledge, the "Bishop" of Gamaliel Ministries had never responded in any fashion to my email response and web site posting, either by sending me any further email, or posting a response to his web site.
However, today I received an email from a gentleman who informed me that Burney Brushears had posted in October 2005, on at least one of his web sites (others may exist that I'm not aware of), "a lengthy diatribe about your comments about him." Indeed, it is quite lengthy. His "initial response" and "current response" now total 74 pages! Burney is a prolific ranter, but very little of anything he says is on-point or responsive to the comparatively brief comments that I originally posted.
Burney Brushears characterizes his tedious 74-page screed as a "rebuttal." Apparently he doesn't comprehend what the definition of "rebuttal" is. Burney's raving commences at
Burney claims to have sent me an email response on June 6, 2004 (http://www.sovereign-freedom.com/critics_corner/peter_kershaw_response_4.htm). Perhaps he did, but if he did (and I'm highly skeptical of that) I never got it. I've had the same email address for years. Burney has changed his multiple times, so if there was a technical or administrative problem it's far more likely to have been his fault than mine. Irrespective, I find it quite telling that it took him a year and a half to post his rebuttal, and that his excuse for taking so long is that, as he alleges, I never responded personally via email.
Whether or not Burney Brushears ever got my email, and whether or not he actually ever sent the follow up email he alleges to have sent on June 6, 2004, is just a feeble excuse to try and regain his lost credibility for failing to respond publicly to my web site posting. 18 months is a long time to be so negligent. If, indeed, he sent me an email on June 6, 2004, he could have, and he should have, posted it on his web site back then, not wait 18 months to do so.
What took you so long, Burney? Do you actually believe that any thinking person would view your own negligence as somehow being my fault? In the future I won't waste my time with emailing Burney at all. Anything I have to say to him (or rather about him) will be posted on my web site.
One of the legal tricks taught in many law schools is, "When you don't have a good defense scream at the plaintiff." In other words engage in ad hominem attacks, e.g. "He's a LIAR!" (the old "Liar, liar, pants are on fire" tactic). Attorneys are also trained in the use of subterfuge and obfuscation. They attempt to overwhelm their opponent by the sheer volume of paperwork they generate (Burney's 74-page "rebuttal" to my single-page denunciation is a classic example of attorney-style subterfuge). I doubt that Burney Brushears ever went to law school, but he certainly understands how to play the attorney game well.
The "Bishop" sets the tone for his entire non-responsive "rebuttal," starting in the third paragraph of the very first page, with:
Sorry to disappoint you Burney, but the evidence doesn't support your ludicrous hypothesis that I am either a liar or a thief. The "manuals" I received weren't stolen, pirated or copied. They were originals. To the best of my knowledge they were bought and paid for, to the tune of $400 each, by those who mailed them to me. I don't "encourage people to send" me copies of copyrighted publications, quite the opposite. What they send are bought and paid for originals. In the case of the two originals of Strategic Withdrawal The Peaceful Solutions Manual, I didn't ask for either one. They both arrived unsolicited. I responded to both gentlemen who sought my legal opinion on your Strategic Withdrawal "manual," in part with:
I receive a plethora of tax protest and patriot publications from people all over the country on a regular basis. They do so for the purpose of getting a second legal opinion (that's a service provided separate and apart from this ministry). Some seek a second legal opinion before they act on the materials; but in many cases they ask for my opinion after they have already acted on the materials and are beginning to feel the effects of the government retaliation that ultimately follows. As such, I also develop strategies for getting people out of the legal lion's den that paytriots like Burney Brushears have tossed them into. For any of Burney's clients, perhaps I might refer to my service as a "strategic withdrawal from 'Bishop' Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal."
In reading through Burney Brushears' ad hominem attacks and subterfuge at his web site, I have to admit that I was initially tempted to respond, point-by-point. But then I remembered the Scripture:
A point-by-point response is unnecessary, and would be a foolish waste of my time. All that is necessary is for me to discredit Burney with several examples of his parsing of phrases, his duplicity and self-contradiction, and his misguided legal theories. My comments here are not to be construed as a rebuttal, but only as an object lesson to the reader about the modus operandi of corporation sole hucksters and flim-flammers masquerading as "Bishops."
Burney Brushears alleges:
It's remarkable how many times in his screed that Burney Brushears alleges that I have "lied" or "made up" something about him and Gamaliel Ministries, when in point of fact I took it right off his own web site. Here's what I quoted from on his site (emphasis mine):
"Sovereignty" is listed on the same page as among one of "The following benefits of corporation sole." Later in his screed Burney Brushears alters ever so slightly his rebuttal over the same issue with:
Like so many other corporation sole hucksters, when backed into a corner Burney Brushears starts parsing phrases just like Bill Clinton. Technically Burney is correct regarding any comments he may or may not have made about the "office of" the "corporation sole" being "completely separate from the system."
Corporation sole peddlers are notorious for hair-splitting. When backed into a corner they'll claim that something isn't what it appears to be, but is actually something entirely different, or that something that they've said isn't really what they said. The alleged distinctions between the terms "corporation sole" and "office of the corporation sole," are a classic example. For legal purposes what Burney Brushears proffers here is a difference without a distinction. No judge would be the least bit impressed with such phrase parsing.
When Burney Brushears gets hauled into court he'll, no doubt, try talking down to the judge, just like he talks down to me, 1 and to anyone else who disagrees with him. The problem for Burney will be that no judge is fond of being talked down to. Furthermore, judges have little trouble determining when charlatans masquerading as legal experts have come before their bench.
What Burney spews in his ad hominem attacks is the inference that he's such a legal genius that a mere mortal like myself can't possibly understand the brilliant insights produced by his superhuman brain. In fact, Burney thinks he's such a genius that he's smarter than every other corporation sole peddler. Only his corporation soles are legit and everyone else's are defective. The funny thing is that's exactly what just about every other corporation sole peddler says about all the other corporation sole peddlers, too! Most of them claim to be a legal genius and that everyone else is just a dolt. Just like Burney Brushears, most of them claim they came up with the idea and that everyone else pirated it from them. It would really be funny if it weren't for the fact that these corporation sole charlatans are getting so many people into legal hot water.
Much of the legal theory espoused in Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal is predicated upon the faulty proposition that it is possible to unilaterally rescind or revoke a contract. Just like other misguided legal ignoramuses, Burney Brushears will assert that the legal justification for rescission is that the contract was fraudulent, and "fraud vitiates the most solemn promise." Indeed, there's a great body of contract case law to show that fraud can serve to invalidate a contract.
Fly #1 in Burney's ointment: There are two or more parties to any contract. A legal principle of contract law is that no individual can legally terminate or vacate a contract absent the acquiescence of all other parties to the contract. Government agencies, in particular, are generally uncooperative in letting you out of any contract you execute with them. Any unilateral rescission is, on its face, of no legal effect, unless the terms and conditions of the contract itself authorize such a rescission (in my experience, such contracts are rare). If anyone could, of their own volition, unilaterally cancel a contract, the net result would be legal anarchy. Virtually all business and industry would grind to a halt. Government too would grind to a halt (not necessarily a bad idea), which is why the government has taken upon itself to ensure through statute and case law that all contracts remain binding.
Fly #2 in Burney's ointment: Vitiating a contract by fraud requires considerably more than the mere allegation of fraud. "Fraud" can only be established by a civil court of original jurisdiction. When fraud is alleged the burden of proof is entirely on the plaintiff to substantiate his allegation. Apart from the court's determination that certain terms and conditions of a contract are indeed fraudulent, a contract is assumed to be valid on its face and legally binding. Prior to making a determination the court must ascertain whether the necessary elements of a cause of action to establish fraud are present. These always include:
In certain cases the intent of the accused must also be determined, something which is usually a daunting prospect. As such the bar is set quite high before a determination of fraud will be affirmed by a court. The mere allegation by a plaintiff of "fraud" doesn't establish fraud. Only a court of law can make that determination. Once fraud has been so adjudged the court can then make a judgement about the contract in dispute. Most courts will hold that the legal remedy is to compel the accused to make restitution to the defrauded party, and then cure those portions of the contract which resulted in fraud, so that no further fraud can occur. In most cases a court will not invalidate the entire contract, but only those portions of the contract that materially resulted in fraud.
Given that so much of Burney Brushears' Strategic Withdrawal theories are based upon contract law, one would suppose that Burney would have expended some time in the law library familiarizing himself with contract law. Clearly, however, he knows nothing of contract law. Burney Brushears cannot cite any case law to support the theory that an individual can unilaterally rescind, revoke, cancel or annul any contract, whether it be with a government agency, or anyone else, because his theory is based upon a faulty legal assumption.
Just like every other one of Burney's faulty legal theories (of which there are many), he appropriated the "rescission of contract" theory from other tax protest leaders who were protesting the income tax when Burney was still in diapers. In this case Burney appropriated a theory that I've seen people using for over twenty years (the idea has probably been around even much longer). The results for those who have acted upon it have been disastrous.
Sending so-called "rescission" or "revocation" letters to a government agency, such as the Affidavit Of Revocation and Rescission Of Social Security Number, posted at
More ad hominem. Those who know me know that I am an advocate and practitioner of personal liberty. In my estimation incarceration is about as far removed from personal liberty as one could hope for. Following the misguided legal theories of paytriots like Burney Brushears puts one in grave jeopardy of losing their liberty, not gaining it. If I ever did go to jail I'd want it to be for a righteous cause, not for a bogus legal theory that so many others have already tried and no one has ever succeeded with.
For paytriots like Burney Brushears the most important (and lucrative 2) element of personal liberty is tax liberty. For me the most important element of liberty is religious liberty. Thus my ministry of unlicensing churches. Without religious liberty there can be no other genuine liberties. As such, taxation and other personal liberty issues are subordinate and secondary to religious liberty.
Burney Brushears might claim that he supports religious liberty, but like so many other paytriots, Burney Brushears uses religion only as a front for evading taxes, or in his words, "we show you how to cover all of your activities under the umbrella a Corporation Sole." Clearly, "all of your activities" goes far above and beyond the religious activities intended by statute and case law for the corporation sole.
Paytriots like Burney Brushears quote the Bible not because they believe that it is the inerrant Word of God (and certainly not because they understand it). Rather, they cherry-pick only those passages that they believe further their tax protesting agenda.
Born-again Christians have the Holy Spirit so that, among other things, they might correctly exegete Scripture. Unbelievers are incapable of properly exegeting the Word of God and, apart from repentance and saving faith in Christ Jesus, will perish in their sins and ignorance.
Though I pray for his salvation, Burney Brushears is, by the words of his own testimony, an unbeliever and thus a "natural man." The Christian should be wary of taking the counsel of unbelievers, but we should be especially wary of unbelievers who quote Scripture, for it is very likely that the only reason they do so is to attempt to gain credibility for their shady practices.
Furthermore, Christians should be skeptical of any man who would name his "ministry" after a Pharisee, and particularly a Pharisee that the Christian church has consistently denounced throughout church history as an unprincipled self-serving pragmatist. Pharisee Gamaliel's counsel was not motivated by any sense of personal integrity, nor any belief in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Gamaliel was an unbeliever and remained an unbeliever. Gamaliel may very well be a hero to Burney Brushears, but Gamaliel can never be a hero to any genuine Christian:
In his "rebuttal" Burney Brushears questions my motives, and even infers that I must be working for the government. This is a common ploy of paytriots like Burney Brushears anyone who disagrees with them must be a government agent or a government shill. However, turnabout is fair play. I could just as easily reverse the argument and allege that Burney Brushears must be working for the government because he's throwing lots of fresh meat (his own clients) into the government meat grinder. He's thereby fulfilling a valuable service to the very government that he claims to oppose.
Is it likely that Burney Brushears works for the government? Probably not. Based on what I've observed with Burney, I don't think that it's likely that he's a government agent. Burney's MO is much the same as a hundred other paytriot tax protest leaders that I've seen come and go over twenty years. None of them were government agents (although their organizations are almost always infiltrated with government agents or paid informants), so I think it unlikely that Burney is working for the IRS or anyone else. I just think he's a legally incompetent greedy opportunist masquerading as a "Bishop."
It would be redundant of me to detail my motives herein. Anyone who has reviewed this web site and/or my publications can readily determine God's calling in my life and what motivates me the sanctifying of the church of Jesus Christ. Those who seek to prey upon the church, or who use the church or church offices as an "umbrella" to advance their own selfish and self-serving agenda, must be opposed and exposed. I need no other motivation than the Word of God:
I'm further motivated by my general concern that people not be duped by pied pipers who promise freedom and liberty, only to lead their devotees up a box canyon to get slaughtered by the government. Burney Brushears' strategies are high-profile and highly provocative. Such antics only invite government retaliation. See my article The Power To Tax Is The Power To Destroy for further insight on my motivations for publically challenging corporation sole peddlers like Burney Brushears.
Any more extensive response than what I offer here to the sham "Bishop" is not only unnecessary, it would be an unwise expenditure of my time. More than enough has already been stated here for people to determine the matter for themselves. Moreover, Burney Brushears the phony "Bishop" has already, with all his bellicose and monotonous ranting, done a noteworthy job of discrediting himself.
Burney Brushears the "Bishop" flees Mexico for Panama with fugitive mystery woman in tow.
Burney Brushear's disappearance proves to be great news for anyone who wants to destroy their life using Burney's Strategic Withdrawal, The Peaceful Solutions Manual.
Price slashed! Formerly $397. Now just $100!
Jeff Otto, who was for some four years Burney Brushears' chief promoter, has very generously slashed the price of the "Bishop's" book by 75%. However, he also offers the following warning:
There's no longer any "support" available, since Burney the "Bishop" is on the lam and nowhere to be found (not that Burney's "support" was ever worth anything, anyway). For more fun facts, see: Burney Brushears Betrayal.
1. Not that Burney is likely to ever show up in court. The first challenge for any court would be to serve him legal process. However, it would be quite a challenge for any U.S. court to legally serve him in Mexico. I'll have to admit that Burney has thought through his personal "strategic withdrawal" carefully. Too bad other Americans don't have the luxury of "withdrawing" the way Burney Brushears has.
2. There's big money to be made in being a tax protest leader, as well as in peddling various tax evasion schemes (such as the corporation sole). All that's required to be successful is some marketing savvy legal expertise is optional. Prominent tax protest leaders like Philip Marsh, Irwin Schiff, Eddie Kahn, Lynne Meredith, Johnny Liberty, Lamarr Hardy, "Judge" John Rizzo, and Keith Anderson have made millions peddling untaxing packages, tax protest conferences, and tax protest books, and have all been criminally convicted and sentenced to lengthy prison terms.
Like Burney Brushears, Eddie Kahn was a tax protest leader and corporation sole peddler. Eddie has avoided arrest, as well as further indictments, by fleeing the country (the word on the street is he's hiding out in Panama). Eddie's clients are in deep trouble with the IRS, but Eddie is no where to be found. Keith Anderson, likewise, hid out in Costa Rica even as his own family members, and some of his clients, were being arrested, tried and convicted on various tax charges. This is typical of how tax protest leaders face the music they often turn tail and run, leaving their clients to fend for themselves.
The feds aren't favorably disposed toward tax protesting (it's not politically correct) so, even if any of the tax protest leaders were 100% correct in their legal theories (that has never happened), the feds aren't about to just stand idly by. The feds are a little slow, but eventually they manage to get around to laying away every tax protest leader. The length of their prison sentences, in many cases, means that the only way they will ever depart jail is in a coffin.
Burney Brushears' legal theories are far less sophisticated and developed than some of the other tax protest leaders (e.g. Irwin Schiff) who have already been convicted and sentenced. However, since Burney Brushears directs his tax war against the IRS from Mexico, making it difficult for the feds to stop him, he doesn't need to personally worry about whether his legal theories have any merit or not. That, however, in no way impedes the feds' ability, nor their inclination, to squash Burney's Strategic Withdrawal or corporation sole clients like little bugs.
|Home | Forum | Events | Catalog | Articles | About Us | Site Map|
2003, Heal Our Land Ministries, All Rights Reserved
A word about copyright
501c3 Tax-Exempt Status: 501c3 Tax Exempt Status and the Church